Ok, I’m a bit lost here, I haven’t dealt with probabilties for several years and would like to find out where I was wrong. Please correct my reasoning:
P(Dumbledore did it \bigcap Dumbledore is a Sadist) =P (Dumbledore did it) x P(Dumbledore is a Sadist)
P(Dumbledore did it)=1-P(Dumbledore didn’t do it)
P(Dumbledore didn’t do it)=P(Dumbledore didn’t do it | He burned a real chicken) + P(Dumbledore didn’t do it | He burned something transfigured to be a chicken).
Now, we don’t know the probabilities P(He burned a real chicken) and P(He burned something transfigured to be a chicken), but it is something that has to be taken into account, isn’t it?
@your answer
In your answer, you assume he did it. If he didn’t do it, he wouldn’t neccessarily have negative associations with burning, only with the fact of being thought to have burned her.
Ok, I’m a bit lost here, I haven’t dealt with probabilties for several years and would like to find out where I was wrong. Please correct my reasoning:
P(Dumbledore did it \bigcap Dumbledore is a Sadist) =P (Dumbledore did it) x P(Dumbledore is a Sadist)
P(Dumbledore did it)=1-P(Dumbledore didn’t do it)
P(Dumbledore didn’t do it)=P(Dumbledore didn’t do it | He burned a real chicken) + P(Dumbledore didn’t do it | He burned something transfigured to be a chicken).
Now, we don’t know the probabilities P(He burned a real chicken) and P(He burned something transfigured to be a chicken), but it is something that has to be taken into account, isn’t it?
@your answer In your answer, you assume he did it. If he didn’t do it, he wouldn’t neccessarily have negative associations with burning, only with the fact of being thought to have burned her.